I really don't understand why the private server is a security issue

[dsc]

I do understand that the private server is an issue as to if she turned over all relevant emails or not. But I don't see the security issue. Here is my reasoning.

One, according to everything I have ever read, the government is no better, and might actually be worse, than the private sector at securing servers. In the past couple of months the agency in charge of government employees has had millions of SS numbers and other sensitive info hacked by China. Chelsea Manning was able to steal millions of cables. Snowden was able to steal God only knows what (though his was a combination of private and government).

Two, Clinton's house, where the server apparently was, is under 24 hour protection by the Secret Service. It is at least as well guarded as the State Department.

Three, the vast majority of computer breeches are caused by hacking passwords or other logins from users or by viruses that users get via email.

Four, Clinton is wealthy and could afford, and likely had, the best protection that the private sector has in regards to the servers.

Now add all of the above up and I don't see any reason why her server would be less secure and a very good reason (way fewer people having access to it) for it to have been more secure than the State Department's server.

Finally, even the NYT agrees, that while Clinton was there, it was considered permissible for the Secretary to use private email instead of, or with, the State Departments. Powell did this and turned over precisely zero emails. I repeat he turned over not a single God damned email from his entire four years as Secretary. And exactly zero words were spent telling us what a sin he committed in this regard. Rice is being rather slippery in this regard (I didn't make a habit of using email) and (I didn't do any business on my personal email but I won't be turning any of it over).

The rules have since been changed to have all emails on the State Department server. I hope that whomever is in charge of securing it does a better job than whomever is in charge of securing the GSA's.

[JaneyVee]

1. The rules changed a few years after she stepped down.

Eta: typo

[Travis_0004]

2. I think there should be checks and balances.

People should be able to file an FOIA, and get access to everything they are legally allowed to see, with a neutral party going over the emails.

As it stands now Hilary clinton has turned over emails that her staffer has said is offical business, so nobody but her knows if stuff was held back.

Even if she didnt break the letter of the law, she broke the spirit of the law, and thats fair game on the campaign trail.

Im an accountant. Our comapny gets an audit every year. The auditor goes through the books and wants to see additional doccuments to back up our numbers.

If I told him 'trust me, its all there' he would never accept it. If I dont show him the doccuments he wants, we fail the audit

Hilary is basically telling us 'Trust me its all there'.

I would rather have an IT guy from the state department pull up the emails. He has less motivation to lie, and he would have trouble hiding info from the entire state department.

[840high]

3. ...^ that

[JaneyVee]

4. Breaking the "spirit of the law"...

In other words: Didn't break the law.

[Travis_0004]

5. Probably not

I dont want to see her arrested, but in politics its fair game, and I hope she is not elected.

[trueblue2007]

6. Hillary TURNED OVER 55,000 PAGES OF EMAILS !!

[Lil Missy]

7. It's not. It's just another partisan faux outrage on a Clinton. n/t

[SunSeeker]

8. Ironic that so many Snowden worshippers are suddenly so worried about security. nt